The Science, Politics and Controversy of Commercial Whaling

I’ve gone missing ever since my return from Japan.  My absense was due in large part to a paper I had to write for one of my classes.  Finally I’ve completed that paper and am presenting the finished product here for you!  I hope you enjoy it.

Abstract

Traditional whaling dates back thousands of years.  The earliest evidence of humans exploiting whales are the petroglyphs found at Bangue-dae in South Korea.  It took until the early 17^th century before modern industrialized whaling began but by the early 20^th century, the need for international cooperation in whale conservation became evident.  In 1946, the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), an environmental agreement which provided for the “proper conservation of whale stocks” and “the orderly development of the whaling industry,” was created.  Today, despite an international moratorium on commercial whaling since 1986, stipulations within the ICRW allow whaling to continue.  Controversy within the IWC has undermined the integrity of the Commission and whaling countries consider the moratorium a violation of their sovereignty and an attack against their national heritage.  All politics aside, whale population estimates indicate that it will take decades to recover from the effects of industrialized whaling and the futures of some species remain uncertain.

From Ancient Civilizations to Contemporary Times

There are approximately seventy-eight living species of whales, dolphins, and porpoises included in the Order Cetacea.  Eleven species fall under the Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales) and sixty-seven under Odontoceti (toothed whales) (NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources, 2010).  All except seven species live in marine environments (World Wildlife Fund, 2010).

The earliest known petroglyphs depicting scenes of humans hunting large cetacean species is located in South Korea at an archaeological site known as Bangu-dae.  Numerous species including sperm whales, right whales and humpback whales have been identified at this site, indicating that the Neolithic (6000-1000 B.C.) populations living in this region were amongst the first to take advantage of these coastal species (Lee and Rubineau, 2004).

To the east of Korea, in Japan, ancient whaling practices can be traced back to the Yamato-Asuka period (538-710 A.D.). The oldest Japanese book, the Kojiki, is a collection of myths about the origin of the islands of Japan and speaks of Japan’s first Emperor, Jimmu (660-585 B.C.), eating whale meat (Facts about Japan, 2010a).

Although traditional whaling practices such as those found in South Korea and Japan date back thousands of years, the first people credited with whaling at a commercial scale were the Basque inhabitants of the Bay of Biscay coasts during the 12th century.  It wasn’t until the early 17th century when modern industrialized whaling began (Sanger, 2005).

By the early 20th century, as a result of new technology and overexploitation, the need for international cooperation in whale conservation became evident. In 1930, the Bureau of International Whaling Statistics was established in order to monitor catches.  The following year, twenty-two nations signed the Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (CRW), the first international regulatory agreement.  Germany and Japan did not sign the CRW and according to the World Wildlife Fund (2010), 43,000 whales were killed that year.

In 1946, the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) was signed by fifteen nations on December 2 and came into effect on November 10, 1948.  The ICRW established the International Whaling Commission (IWC), an international body tasked with providing for the “proper conservation of whale stocks” and “the orderly development of the whaling industry” (Peterson, 1992; International Whaling Commission, 2010a).  Since 1946, efforts to regulate whaling have been channeled through the IWC.  See Appendix I for a current list of member nations.                                          

At the end of World War II, Japan faced a food crisis.  On August 6th, 1946, Army General Douglas MacArthur signed a directive authorizing Japanese whaling operations to commence in the Antarctic (Oberthür, 1998).   MacArthur intended to provide a cheap source of meat to feed the starving people of Japan; by 1947, whale meat composed over 50 percent of the meat consumed in Japan (Animal Planet, 2010).

Whaling Continues Despite an International Moratorium

In 1986, the IWC passed an international moratorium on commercial whaling operations.  Iceland and Japan continued hunting under the auspices of scientific research under Article VIII, Paragraph 1 of the ICRW, a provision which allows whaling for scientific purposes, while Norway ignored the ban altogether (International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 1946).

In the three years after the moratorium was imposed, Iceland killed ninety whales under a scientific research permit.  The meat was sold in restaurants in Iceland and exported to Japan while the carcasses were used for pet food, vitamins and lubricating oil.  By 1989, international pressure forced Iceland to end commercial whaling activities.  The next year, a research proposal submitted by Iceland was rejected by the IWC Scientific Committee.  Fisheries Minister, Thorsteinn Palsson, claimed the IWC had abandoned any interest in exploiting whale resources and in 1992 Iceland quit the IWC in protest (Parnell, 2007).

In 2006, Iceland resumed commercial whaling and began exporting whale meat.  Since 2008, Iceland has killed 273 endangered fin whales, a rate which the IWC Scientific Committees fears is unsustainable, and exported approximately 600 tons of meat. Export of endangered whale meat is in direct defiance of the United Nation’s Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species agreement (Parnell, 2007).

In a press release dated November 23, 2010, U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke criticized Iceland’s international trade in fin whale meat as well as its escalation of commercial whaling.  He expressed the United States’ opposition to Iceland’s defiance of the commercial whaling ban and urged Iceland to cease international trade of whale meat.  Secretary Locke also indicated that the U.S. is currently evaluating potential domestic responses to Iceland’s increased whale harvest (United States Department of Commerce, 2010).

Although Japan withdrew its objection to the IWC moratorium on commercial whaling in 1988, similar to Iceland, whaling operations continued in the name of scientific research (International Whaling Commission, 2010b).  Organizations such as Sea Shepherd Conservation Society claim that the Institution of Cetacean Research (ICR) operates under the guise of “research” and exploits Article VIII, claiming it is a loophole which allows commercial whaling to continue.  Furthermore, Article VIII, Paragraph 3 states that any whales taken for scientific purposes shall be processed so far as practicable, allowing whale meat taken as a result of scientific research to be sold for food on the open market (International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 1946).

The Japanese Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA) began in 1988 to define the role of whales in the Antarctic ecosystem, estimate natural mortality rates and other biological parameters, determine whale stock numbers and structure, and understand the affects of environmental changes (International Whaling Commission, 2010b).  More than 6,800 Antarctic minke whales were killed under JARPA, compared to a total of 840 whales killed globally by Japan for scientific research in the 31 years prior to the 1986 moratorium (International Whaling Commission, 2005).

According to the ICR, the JARPA program marked a significant contribution to the advancement of scientific knowledge of whale resources in the Antarctic (Institute of Cetacean Research, 2005).  However, the IWC noted in 2007 that none of the goals of JARPA had been reached and that the aims of a second proposed research program, JARPA II, did not address any critically important research needs.

The IWC requested that the government of Japan suspend any lethal aspects of its research program, contending that the research objectives could be accomplished via non-lethal techniques such as biopsy sampling, stable isotope analysis, photo identification and fecal sampling, further suggesting that these non-lethal methods would allow for larger sample sizes and greater statistical power (International Whaling Commission, 2010b). The Commission also voiced its concern that some humpback whales targeted by JARPA II belonged to vulnerable breeding populations and that even small takes might have a detrimental effect on the recovery and survival of such populations (International Whaling Commission, 2010).

In June 2010, Australia filed a lawsuit against the Japanese government with the International Court of Justice, maintaining that Japan’s hunt is for commercial purposes and fails to qualify for the scientific exemption due to “a lack of any demonstrated relevance for the conservation and management of whale stocks” (Yuasa, 2010).

Flaws in the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling

Despite the creation of the International Whaling Commission as a means to provide for the “proper conservation of whale stocks” and “the orderly development of the whaling industry,” there are significant flaws in the Convention which prevent the IWC from carrying out their objectives and purposes.  Amongst them:

1. Member nations have the ability to exempt themselves from any amendment to the Convention by filing a formal objection under Article V, Paragraph 3.  This clause has allowed Norway to continue commercial whaling despite the 1986 moratorium.
2. Whales taken for scientific research are exempted from the Convention under Article VIII, Paragraph 1.  This clause also allows member nations to impose their own quotas on whales taken for scientific purposes.  Both Iceland and Japan have utilized this clause to justify their whaling operations.
3. Article VIII, Paragraph 3, requires animals taken for scientific purposes to be processed so far as practicable, thus allowing whale meat to be sold for consumption on the open market.
4. The IWC lacks a regulatory body and has no ability to enforce the Convention or punish member nations in violation of the agreement.  Article IX, Paragraphs 1 and 3, state that enforcement of the Convention is the responsibility of each member nation and any infractions are punished by the government having jurisdiction over the offense. 
5. Article XI allows member nations to withdraw from the IWC and thus are no longer subject to the rules of the Convention.

Controversy within the International Whaling Commission

Article X of the IWRC permits any country to become a member of the IWC, meaning participation in whaling is not a requirement of membership.  As a result, the organizational character of the IWC shapes the policy process as much as the merit of the proposals (Peterson, 1992).

Between 1979 and 1982, nineteen nations signed on to the IWC.  According to an article in New Scientist magazine, a campaign led by Peter Scott, head of the World Wildlife Fund, prompted the participation of these nations.  The articles states that Scott was able to convince these countries to sign on to the IWC by offering to help in providing suitable delegates as well as paying for expenses related to their participation in the IWC, a violation of Article III, Paragraph 5, which states that the expenses of each member of the Commission shall be paid by their own government.  In 1980, China joined the IWC in response to a promise made by the World Wildlife Fund to provide $1 million for the funding of a panda reserve (Pearce, 2006).

A report published in 2000 by Aron et al., suggests that numerous states with no interest in whaling have become members of the IWC solely for the purpose of objecting to any initiatives that would allow the whaling moratorium of 1986 to be lifted.  Austria and Italy have both openly declared that their intention for joining the IWC is to seek the elimination of all commercial whaling.  This, according to Aron, is contrary to the purpose of the treaty which they pledged to uphold as the fundamental purpose of the IWRC is “to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry.”  The Japanese Fisheries Agency has criticized the anti-whaling members of the IWC, stating:

“It [ICRW] is not a treaty for the total protection of whales.  It is a treaty whose purpose is to ensure the sustainable use of whale resources…Those members of the IWC who are opposed to the sustainable use of whale resources and who try to impose their views on the rest of the world are subverting the purpose of the treaty and have caused the IWC to become dysfunctional” (Hirata, 2004).

Similar to the efforts made by Peter Scott, Japan has more recently used overseas development aid money to persuade poorer countries such as St. Vincent, St. Lucia, Grenada, Antigua, Dominica, St. Kitts, and Solomon Islands, to support their pro-whaling stance in the IWC.  In 2001, senior Japanese fisheries official Maseyuku Komatsu admitted to bribing these countries in an effort to overturn the 1986 moratorium, saying Japan had limited tools with which to influence other countries on the issue (Earth Island Journal, 2001).

Population Estimates of Whale Species Regulated by the IWC Moratorium

Ten species of whales are currently under protection of the IWC moratorium.  Some species appear to be relatively abundant and could be exploited to a limited extent, especially several stocks of minke whales and sperm whales.  Many species of whales have been severely depleted by commercial whaling and in many cases it is still uncertain whether remaining stocks will be able to recover.  Even if recovery is possible, it will take decades to rebuild populations to their original size.  In some cases, whale populations are increasing by rates of up to 7 percent annually though the future of the blue whale appears uncertain (Oberthür, 1998).

A key component of conservation and management of whales is being able to estimate the abundance and trends in population.  This information allows scientists to evaluate possible threats against specific species.  Population estimates are made using a variety of techniques including ship surveys, photo-identification studies, acoustic and satellite/radio tracking, and genetic analysis of populations, although estimating the abundance of animals which spend the majority of time below water is challenging (International Whaling Commission, 2010c).

Due to the considerable scientific uncertainty over the numbers of whales, the IWC only provides whale population figures for those species and stocks which have been assessed in detail (International Whaling Commission, 2010c).  Table 1 shows approximate populations of the whale species under protection of the 1986 IWC moratorium on commercial whaling both prior to exploitation as well as current population estimates. Pre-exploitation estimates only include those areas and populations subject to whaling activities whereas the current figures include all whale populations.  As a result, population sizes may not be directly comparable (Oberthür, 1998).

TABLE 1. Population Sizes of Whale Species Prior to Commercial Whaling and Today
	Pre-Exploitation		Today
Blue whale	More than 200,000		About 10,000
Humpback whale	More than 150,000		20-25,000
Fin whale	More than 500,000		About 30,000
Sei whale	More than 200,000		About 50,000
Sperm whale	2,500,000		About 2,000,000
Minke whale	Fewer than 500,000		About 900,000
Bowhead whale	More than 50,000		About 8,000
Grey whale	More than 20,000		21,000
Northern right whale	More than 45,000		Fewer than 1,000
Southern right whale	100,000		3,500

Small Cetacean Species

Japan has set an annual quota to kill more than 20,000 small cetacean species such as bottlenose dolphins and pilot whales which are not protected under the IWC.  Fishermen in the village of Taiji, considered the birthplace of whaling in Japan (although whaling there ended in 1988 after Japan withdrew its objection to the IWC moratorium), target these smaller species using a technique called “oikomi”.  From the beginning of September through March, these dolphin species are driven into the rocky shore of Kujirahama Park and are slaughtered using spears and knives (Taiji Declaration on Traditional Whaling, 2006).  Other places in Japan, such as Futo and Iki, used similar drive hunting techniques, though today there are no more dolphins in Iki.  After a five year hiatus from hunting dolphin, Futo officials have said they will resume their dolphin hunt, setting a quota of 419 dolphins (West, 2010).

Though some of the meat is used for pet food and animal feed, much of it ends up in the national whale-meat inventory (Beech, 2007).  In 2005, Tetsuya Endo, a professor at Hokkaido’s Health Science University, measured the mercury levels found in dolphin meat sold in Japan for human consumption.  One sample contained 98.9 parts per million (ppm) of total mercury (Endo et al., 2005).  The Japanese Health Ministry advisory level for total mercury is 0.4 ppm (Harnell, 2008).

To put this number in perspective, in the Japanese fishing village of Minamata, a chemical factory discharged industrial wastewater containing methyl-mercury into the local bay.  Area residents began suffering from severe illnesses, psychiatric disorders and even death.  According to a report from Kumamoto University Medical School, mercury concentrations in the fish and shellfish from Minamata Bay were 5.61 to 35.7 ppm (Harada, 1995).

Questions of Culture and Ethnocentrism

Some people claim that whaling has no place in the contemporary world, stating that many industrialized countries such as the United States, Australia and Germany stopped commercial whaling twenty to thirty years ago.  Why, then, do some nations continue whaling even though the industry doesn’t contribute to their economies and brings international condemnation?

According to some (Aron et al., 2000; Hirata, 2004), the answer lies in food culture.  Many ex-whaling nations did so primarily for whale oil, a valuable commodity until the 1960s, and did not include whale meat in their food culture.  Instead, it was used as animal food or fertilizer and the sinew was used for tennis rackets and the baleen for brooms.  Nations such as Norway and Japan included whale meat into their food cultures and, today, these whaling communities see no reason to change this part of their traditional culture (Aron et al., 2000).

What is often ignored in the discussion of food culture, however, is that for thousands of years, the consumption of whale meat was limited to specific coastal regions of Japan.  During the early 20^th century, the people in northern Japan viewed whales as mystical gods that looked over their communities and helped to bring them wealth.  It wasn’t until after World War II that the consumption of whale meat became commonplace nationally (Hirata, 2004).

Some consider the whaling controversy to be a struggle between meat eaters and fish eaters, even linking the controversy to racism and cultural imperialism.  At the 1989 IWC meeting, Japan’s commissioner argued that the meat-eating culture was taking advantage of the IWC to destroy the fish-eating culture.  In defense of Japan’s whale-eating culture, the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries argued:

“The consumption of whale meat is not an outdated cultural practice and…eating beef is not the world standard…For many cultures, in other parts of the world, the consumption of beef, or pork, is unacceptable.  Clearly, the acceptance of other cultures’ dietary practices and the promotion of cultural diversity is as important as saving endangered species and the promotion of biological diversity.  If the consumption of whale meat does not endanger whale species, those who find the practice unacceptable for themselves should not try to impose the views on others” (Hirata, 2004).

Conclusion

The International Whaling Commission was established to provide for the “proper conservation of whale stocks” and ensure “the orderly development of the whaling industry”.  When the IWC was created, it was done so to avoid an oversupply of whale oil and prevent a decrease in oil prices.  It was a matter of simple economics (Oberthür, 1998).

Over sixty years has passed since the adoption of the ICRW and a lot has changed.  Whale populations are a fraction of what they once were and there is no longer a demand for whale oil at a commercial scale.  Whale meat is only consumed by a tiny fraction of the global population.  The ICRW, as it is written, is a weak tool that does not meet the needs of today’s circumstances.

The loopholes in the ICRW do not allow for the dual objectives of conserving whale stocks and the development of the whaling industry to succeed.  Instead, they undermine the integrity of the IWC as a governing body.  It is a disgrace that member nations are able to carry out scientific research programs despite unanimous rejection and condemnation by the Scientific Committee of the IWC and the lack of enforcement of any kind is pathetic.  The system is broken and needs to be fixed.

Not only is the system broken, the scandals within the IWC only further damage its reputation and integrity.  Taking advantage of poor nations to further your own agenda is unethical.  For member nations to participate in such actions shows a complete lack of respect and disregard to the Convention which they swore to uphold, not to mention being in contempt of Article III, Paragraph 5.

The Convention has failed the test of time and so too has the excuse of “tradition” as a reason for continued whaling.  It wasn’t until after World War II that the consumption of whale meat in Japan became widespread in an effort to provide starving people with a cheap source of protein.  Whale was the temporary solution to the problem.  Today, there is approximately four thousand tons of excess whale meat frozen in warehouses around Japan that no one is eating.  Ninety-five percent of Japanese people have never or rarely eat whale meat.  If tradition is the reason, where’s the proof?

Iceland’s market for whale meat is equally poor.  A poll conducted in 2006 indicated that only 1.1 percent of Icelandic households eat whale meat weekly and it is estimated that the current domestic market for minke whale meat in Iceland is 5 to 15 tons a year. In 2007, The Icelandic press reported that 179 tons of whale “slaughter waste” had been dumped in landfills. Gunnar Bergmann Jonsson, head of the minke whalers’ association, stated that there are now plans to sell ninety percent of their whale meat to Japan (Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, 2010).  Norway faces a similar situation in their commercial market.  The goal there is to export the whale meat to Japan where prices are several times higher than in Norway (Greenpeace, 2009).

If Japan has four thousand tons of excess whale meat that no one is eating, why do they continue to import meat from Iceland and Norway?  Further research must be conducted in order to answer this question.

Bibliography